Fahrenheit 9/11

I saw this movie last night at the fundraiser I had organised.

It was quite interesting. I have read enough of the reviews to understand where the manipulation lies in the film, and there is manipulation there. Probably the most blatant is the shot of George Bush at that elite dinner party, about the haves and have-mores - if my memory serves, that was at a National Press Club fundraiser where everyone was saying stuff like that, it wasn't a speech to the Republican Party. (That said, it was still pretty funny.)

Despite the problems with the film, it is worth seeing. Not because of the plot - not the direct plot anyway. I don't have much time for people who think the Bushes and the Bin Ladens are conspiring together.

What I did like was the personalisation of war: it was a good movie to remind you that wars kill real people, and the leaders who order the wars - and their families - are never on the line. That's a powerful statement about power and how it works.

The other interesting point was that war is working people fighting each other, at the bidding of the fat cats. The United States armed services are predominantly people we might call 'white trash' and Latin-American and Black Americans; the poorest and most deprived communities provide most of the troops for the Empire's wars. This has always been the case in every empire, but in something which calls itself a democracy is pretty chilling.

Ironically, such people join the armed forces because they're often the only way out of the poverty and lack of life chances they have. The scenes with the two Marines recruiting in Flint, Michigan were spinetinglingly creepy. And having gotten out of poverty through this great institution, they are then sent off to kill other people rather like themselves.

I don't like blood either, so the shots of people injured or killed were not too great. They had to be there though, as part of the personalisation thing. Some people seem capable of believing that the "enemy" aren't people - well they are, and watching them die helps remind you of that.

It was a pretty subdued crowd who came out. But definitely worth seeing.

Comments

[Idiot/Savant]

I think the scene where Moore tried to get Congressmen to sign their own kids up for the military was one of the best. The way they looked at him as if he was an utter martian revealed a great deal about the attitudes of America's leaders to their citizens.

[Jordan]

Well, if I was one of them and I had kids I'd have done the same thing. No way in hell would I sign anyone up to the armed forces.

That said, I also wouldn't be supporting such a god damned stupid war. :)

[David Farrar]

"the poorest and most deprived communities provide most of the troops for the Empire's wars. This has always been the case in every empire" is not quite correct.

The Roman Republic (which IMO was one of the better forms of Government) reserved fighting in the Army to basically land owning or wealthy families. In fact it was the actions of Gaius Marius in around 100 BC who started accepting poorer soldiers, which partially led to the decline of the Republic as soldiers became more loyal to the General which paid them, than Rome itself.

[stef]

I thought it was slightly melodramtic but good view nonetheless.

As for the comments on the US military, yes some of them the sterotype but there is a bit of a mix there. I know a lot of people from \'military families\' who don\'t do it due to income but rather tradition.

I didn\'t like saying goodbye to one of my buddies who has been transferred out of korea and into Iraq.

[Jordan]

David, interesting points. In the Roman republic and empire it was indeed that transition to a sort of 'demagogic army' (I don't know if that term has any validity, but I hope you know what I mean) that meant that the politicians could seize power.

The question is - does that pose any lessons for dealing with the USA?

(and my point about empire was more about the modern empires, I didn't have the ancient ones in mind... my bad)

[Greyshade]

Jordan. Even in USA (and Britain) the ruling (or at least patrician) classes have made some contributions to recent wars - notably John Kerry (Vietnam) and Prince Andrew (Falklands). Of course that only makes the strings pulled by the Bushes et al worse but maybe (optimism mode on) we'll get a real clean out in US politics this time round. At the very least a CiC who knows war is an opportunity for his mates to get killed rather than make a killing.

[mike]

Anyone know what the casualty rate is for sitting Presidents? GWB is 43rd President.
So far in Iraq >300,000 served. Fatality rate <0.5%

[Simon]

Yea Iraq is big business. F911 has sales of over $100 million and MM didn’t even set foot in Iraq. Good on him. MM is living the American dream.

Rich mans war poor mans fight. Very old saying predating the US empire. This was a big theme for European socialists at the end of WW1 but good to see it still sells today.

Yeah the US military casualty rate is small. US military casualty numbers to date represents a bad weeks recruiting in Michigan.

[Andrew Straw]

Well, there are about 150,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq. The American death toll is pushing 1000. American wounded so far is in the 6,000 range.

American dead and wounded = 7000

Percentage of total dead = .67%
Percentage of total wounded = 4%
Percentage dead and wounded = 4.67%

Cf. Vietnam

500,000 troops
59,000 dead
Percentage of total dead = 11.8%

The real question is whether those 7,000 dead and injured in Iraq and countless thousands of Iraqis dead and injured are justified by Bush's reasoning. No WMDs. No connection with Al Qaeda. No threat to Americans except Saddam's botched assassination plot against the elder Bush. "Democracy" in Iraq will crumble into despotism very soon after the occupiers leave, as Iraq's current government will very soon look like the Shah of Iran, who was supported by the CIA before the Islamic revolution there.

Hard to justify tens of thousands of people killed and injured mainly to settle an old vendetta.

As Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi said a while back in regards to Bush and the 2004 election: "He's gone. He's so gone."